This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?


On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:

Hello,

In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.

The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded. The configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....

Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the word `inferior' should be used. Of course, this would mean that `core' becomes an inferior (...).

I've always used inferior only for a running target, generally a
ptraced one locally.  But that's just my usage.

I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target.  I'd suggest
punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.
Not being in common use doesn't rule out GDB adopting it. That is what good documentation (and a glosary) is for :-) (Debug engineers aren't exactly lying about on the ground so I'd not be suprized if its use wasn't common. Perhaphs other debugers have other terms.

(debugee makes me cringe :-)

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]